If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:11 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:01 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:59 pm
I gave you a good example of a massive fucking loser in UK politics already. If you don't pay any attention to how your own politics works, you don't have to start threads about it in which to broadcast your ignorance.
We're all here to learn so what makes you the exception?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Oh come on Phil, don't make this place a house of lies. You haven't learned what Ad Hominem means yet but you throw the accusation around with reckless abandon. You are so adamantly opposed to learning that you probably think this is an Ad Hom.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:14 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:11 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:01 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:59 pm
I gave you a good example of a massive fucking loser in UK politics already. If you don't pay any attention to how your own politics works, you don't have to start threads about it in which to broadcast your ignorance.
We're all here to learn so what makes you the exception?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Oh come on Phil, don't make this place a house of lies. You haven't learned what Ad Hominem means yet but you throw the accusation around with reckless abandon. You are so adamantly opposed to learning that you probably think this is an Ad Hom.
Look who's talking.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:19 pm

Yes, me. But I know what Ad Hominem means which is why I rarely accuse people of it.

Perhaps you could take a little time out and learn a thing.
As simple googling appears to be beyond you, feel free to let me do that for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:34 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:19 pm
Yes, me. But I know what Ad Hominem means which is why I rarely accuse people of it.

Perhaps you could take a little time out and learn a thing.
As simple googling appears to be beyond you, feel free to let me do that for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You're beginning to learn.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:58 pm

Admit it, your new strategy is to just get the last word by writing boring shit that serves no purpose until I lose interest.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:20 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:58 pm
Admit it, your new strategy is to just get the last word by writing boring shit that serves no purpose until I lose interest.
Oh, so you want the last word. If that's what makes you happy, I'll let you have the last word. :lol:

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:25 pm

Ok then. I will accept the last word you are so generously offering!

I always liked this picture, it should be on this forum instead of some of the total bollocks that gets written here

Image










End of stupid thread.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:51 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:50 am
FDP:

"Trump's only two objectives are to be rich...'

Since he never released his tax return, you can't tell. And what do you mean by rich? And how do you know what he has on his mind exactly? I won't waste my time responding to the rest of what you wrote, but it's obvious from just this part you didn't put careful thought into what you wrote.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
It's time to give philosophy explorer a dictionary. If someone needs definitions to understand such basic everyday concepts as "rich", and how to deduce intentions and motivations from actions, is his or her place on a philosophy forum? Don't misunderstand me, PhilX, I am happy to have you here, the more the merrier, but c'mon, why do you need a definition of "rich" and why do you deny that actions can be reverse-engineered psychologically to intentions, desires?

F'rinstance, "Grab them by the p...y" means that he lives in a world where the force de rigeur is a wild abandon of sex. It takes a certain sort of person to 1. do what everyone else only dreams of doing and 2. proudly tell the world about it. This is presidential material, not some whiny little snot who keeps putting insipid posts into philosophy forums (such as you and I and all and each one of us here.) He goes out and grabs a p...y, wrings its neck, and then takes it home to his family to feed on it.

Or you mean it's not a kitty cat he is talking about?

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:19 pm

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:51 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:50 am
FDP:

"Trump's only two objectives are to be rich...'

Since he never released his tax return, you can't tell. And what do you mean by rich? And how do you know what he has on his mind exactly? I won't waste my time responding to the rest of what you wrote, but it's obvious from just this part you didn't put careful thought into what you wrote.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
It's time to give philosophy explorer a dictionary. If someone needs definitions to understand such basic everyday concepts as "rich", and how to deduce intentions and motivations from actions, is his or her place on a philosophy forum? Don't misunderstand me, PhilX, I am happy to have you here, the more the merrier, but c'mon, why do you need a definition of "rich" and why do you deny that actions can be reverse-engineered psychologically to intentions, desires?

F'rinstance, "Grab them by the p...y" means that he lives in a world where the force de rigeur is a wild abandon of sex. It takes a certain sort of person to 1. do what everyone else only dreams of doing and 2. proudly tell the world about it. This is presidential material, not some whiny little snot who keeps putting insipid posts into philosophy forums (such as you and I and all and each one of us here.) He goes out and grabs a p...y, wrings its neck, and then takes it home to his family to feed on it.

Or you mean it's not a kitty cat he is talking about?
Why the dictionary? To make sure we're on the same page. I'm entitled to know what FDP means by rich e.g. which he couldn't know since Trump hasn't released his tax return. Also it's been reported that Trump lost money on some of his businesses and besides the $400k he makes from his job, nothing is definite about his finances. If Trump were poor, would he react differently to the rich and the poor however they're defined exactly?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:26 am

PhilX, you are also entitled to know what FDP means by the following:

"A"
"aardwaark"
"Abessinia"
"Abort"
"Abracadabra"
"Absolute"
etc. etc. etc.

Why concentrate on one single word?

This is to illustrate that you can't argue by trying to squeeze definitions out of other people for concepts that are commonly understood.

FDP could come back to you, and ask you, "What do you mean by "tax", by "return"? What do you mean by "released"?

He could just as validly ask you to define these words, as these words also each have more than one meaning.

Please don't ask trivial questions. They slow down the process of thought exchange for no real or valid reason. If you don't understand a word, fine; you can ask (but can't actually expect an answer). But if you know the meaning of the word, then please don't trivialize the conversation by asking for a definition of it.

You can say "No, Trump is not rich," if that's what you want to say. But you can't ask for a definition of "rich". That is just plain silly.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:29 am

BTW, PhilX, tax returns don't form a base for knowing if someone is rich. Tax returns are income statements, not asset sheets; and the quality of rich is a statement of asset level, not of income.

I can lose twenty-eight trillion dollars as declared in a tax return (as the US of A often does), and still remain rich with forty thousand trillion dollars (as he US of A remains.) Income affects riches, but is not at all equivalent to riches. High income does not mean you are rich, and low income does not mean you are poor. Income affects asset levels, true, but is irrelevant in determining asset level.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:54 am

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:26 am
PhilX, you are also entitled to know what FDP means by the following:

"A"
"aardwaark"
"Abessinia"
"Abort"
"Abracadabra"
"Absolute"
etc. etc. etc.

Why concentrate on one single word?

This is to illustrate that you can't argue by trying to squeeze definitions out of other people for concepts that are commonly understood.

FDP could come back to you, and ask you, "What do you mean by "tax", by "return"? What do you mean by "released"?

He could just as validly ask you to define these words, as these words also each have more than one meaning.

Please don't ask trivial questions. They slow down the process of thought exchange for no real or valid reason. If you don't understand a word, fine; you can ask (but can't actually expect an answer). But if you know the meaning of the word, then please don't trivialize the conversation by asking for a definition of it.

You can say "No, Trump is not rich," if that's what you want to say. But you can't ask for a definition of "rich". That is just plain silly.
The other words I have no interest in on this thread.

Did you appoint yourself as his spokesman? If he has interest in broadening the discussion, then I welcome it.
Asking questions actually can aid the process of thought exchange. That you find it trivial is your opinion.

You say I can't ask for a definition of rich, but I already have.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:00 am

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:29 am
BTW, PhilX, tax returns don't form a base for knowing if someone is rich. Tax returns are income statements, not asset sheets; and the quality of rich is a statement of asset level, not of income.

I can lose twenty-eight trillion dollars as declared in a tax return (as the US of A often does), and still remain rich with forty thousand trillion dollars (as he US of A remains.) Income affects riches, but is not at all equivalent to riches. High income does not mean you are rich, and low income does not mean you are poor. Income affects asset levels, true, but is irrelevant in determining asset level.
One tax return is an income statement. Several in conjunction with other statements (e.g. bank statements) can be used to judge how wealthy a person really is. It's a good rule of thumb that the more income a person derives, the more likely that person is rich.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:35 am

You are wrong again, PhilX, but I shan't lower myself into discussing things with you, since you outright indicated that you don't want me to be somebody's spokesperson.

Go, do say what you want, with no regard to reality and reason, and I shan't bother you.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: If TIME picked loser of the year, who would that be?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:19 pm

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:35 am
You are wrong again, PhilX, but I shan't lower myself into discussing things with you, since you outright indicated that you don't want me to be somebody's spokesperson.

Go, do say what you want, with no regard to reality and reason, and I shan't bother you.
Since you're not posting anything worthwhile, I'll let you have the last word.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests